Corbyn makes Brexit a Party Issue
Labour has kicked off Brexit policy discussions by announcing that it would negotiate a new agreement with Brussels that would allow the UK to remain part of the customs union and presumably the single market. Just how that could happen and any form of Brexit could take place was unsurprisingly not mentioned.
It is an uninspiring position to be in as a politician to be forced to support a policy that is at odds with your core beliefs because a) most of your supporters are in favour and b) you have committed to abide by the result of a referendum.
Labour has miraculously managed to commit to a Brexit which doesn’t exist. To claim to support a UK exists outside the confines of the EU is doing a disservice to those who voted in the referendum and believe in the will of the people. Of course, there will be naysayers who make spurious claims about the voters not really understanding what Brexit meant. That may be so, but it was surely the time for those points to be made was during the campaign and that ship has now surely sailed.
To say that they support Brexit but are trying to support British manufacturing jobs and the rights of EU workers does a mis-service to the British public and Labour voters. There is little doubt that Labour, possibly in collusion with the European Council or European Commission or both to force a general election and a subsequent Labour government which would agree to a Brexit so soft that it would hardly even be noticed.
Labours assertion that it would 'negotiate' the UK remaining in the customs union leaves out possibly the most vital piece of the jigsaw, what would Labour offer to the EU in return or, more importantly, what would Brussels accept.
Five Measures Cedes any proactivity
The long-awaited definitive Brexit proposals that Theresa May was nothing more than another wish list. This time it was a list of what Brussels needs to do to satisfy Britain’s demands for equality when it eventually leaves the EU.
Delivers on the referendum result. Hmmm
A lasting solution; obviously. We will want very little to do with each other administratively once it’s all over.
Protect jobs and security; Brussels could care less about UK jobs, but security is a two-way street which doesn’t really need a treaty.
The UK remains an outward-looking European democracy: outward looking? Sure, European? That’s a matter of geography unless continental drift has suddenly hurried up. Democracy? Not sure it feels like that.
Strengthens the union of UK nations. Ahh, the old Irish border question neatly fitted in.
Let’s go back to the first condition. Delivers on the referendum result. That’s a tricky point since no one really knows what they voted for. hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Irish border, customs union, the single market. The main questions from the referendum were immigration, immigration, oh and immigration.
On reflection, both sides of the argument over Brexit served the population poorly. It was very different from a general election where both sides views are clear and without issue. It was obvious that there was an underlying political element while David Cameron wasprime mnister and his views on Brexit were clear very few of his acolytes were going to go against his views for fear of what could happen after the vote.
I recall a similar situation over a free vote on hanging during Margaret Thatcher’s time in office. A few MP’s misread the Iron Lady’s stance on the subject and a few political careers never recovered.
The UK cannot now expect to be able to do any more than react to what is demanded by Brussels. The time for proactivity has been ceded and a presumed reliance on individual nations feeling they have more to lose than the entire collective is a tenuous position at best.
Where do we go from here?
Over the past few weeks, it is the question of the Irish border that has become the frontline in the Brexit process. Both sides are justified in their position. It is, however, Brussels that probably needs to find a solution more than the UK. A hard border is in no one’s best interest. Northern Ireland continues to abide by the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace and a degree of power-sharing to the province but remains fiercely 'British' it has an improving relationship with Dublin, but the South needs the North economically far more than the other way around and that is why Brussels needs to be more flexible.
To have a soft land border between, ostensibly, the EU and a non-member state is unacceptable to Brussels as it goes against the idea of free movement and the customs union. For the U.K. to “move” the border into the middle of the Irish sea and basically abandon Northern Ireland to be subject to some kind of halfway-house of partial control by Brussels simply will never happen. The Labour Party’s “commitment” to negotiating a new customs union conveniently sidesteps any mention of an “Irish solution”.
So, can there be anything other than a hard Brexit if this single issue cannot be resolved? Well, obviously the simple answer is no. That leaves the UK Government in a difficult “Catch-22” situation. If they have the balls to commit to a hard Brexit, a hard border becomes a reality and could force Brussels into a climbdown.
That is a big 'if' since there is hardly the will within Conservative ranks to agree to any sort of Brexit. Anything else, however, is tantamount to abandoning Northern Ireland and with that, the government’s majority disappears and so does Theresa May.